Quashed show cause notice under Article 226, citing factual errors and lack of jurisdiction.

The court quashed the show cause notice issued under Article 226 of the Constitution due to factual inaccuracies regarding the petitioner's tenure and lack of jurisdiction. Other grounds of challenge were dismissed without costs imposed on the petitioner. The court emphasized that public orders must be objectively construed based on the language used in the order itself, without considering subsequent explanations, highlighting the public impact and influence of such orders.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the petitioner was not connected to the alleged contravention of the Act and Rules by Duncan Agro Companies Ltd. The notice accused individuals of evading excise duty on cigarettes, implicating senior executives and directors, including the petitioner. The notice invoked various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, alleging fraudulent intent to evade duty. The petitioner, a former Senior Manager (Finance) at Duncan Agro Industries Ltd., was accused of involvement in the violation of rules during his tenure. The notice, however, inaccurately portrayed the petitioner as a Senior Executive during a period when he had not yet joined the company, leading to a challenge based on lack of jurisdiction and factual inaccuracies.

The court referred to the principle that public orders must be judged based on the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by subsequent explanations. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that orders by statutory functionaries must be objectively construed based on the language used in the order, without considering post hoc justifications. The court highlighted the importance of public orders having public effect and influencing the conduct of those addressed by them. Consequently, the court quashed the show cause notice concerning the petitioner, citing the limited ground of factual inaccuracies regarding his tenure and lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed other grounds of challenge raised in the petition, without imposing costs on the petitioner.

---